"it’s good to see the idea that humans’ alimentary instinct still works with raw unprocessed foods had been suggested before GCB thought about it."
You must be kidding. The idea that our instinct has been designed specifically for raw food (and only for raw food) has been around for centuries, and is certainly one of the hotest topics in the history of both scientific and naturopathic hygienism.
If you read "Lectures on the science of human life" by Sylvester Graham (1839) , you will find that the whole book deals with the matter of human food instinct although from a purely vegetarian/biblical/puritan/naturopathic point of view . Now if you turn away from naturopathic litterature to scientific litterature produced by (then) contemporary military physicians (during the so-called "Romantic" period) you will find equivalent treatises on food instinct written from a non vegetarian /non puritan/spiritual perspective. Obviously their goals and their audience were not the same : while Graham was trying to catch the largest possible audience to evangelize masses of american drunkards, military physicians were trying to elaborate a theory of human food instinct putting together elements from various disciplines, to call the attention of fellow scientists. Graham was making a business while military physicians were working behind the curtains.
Military physicians of the XIXth c. remained unimpressed by the then rising tide of vegetarian sects and their failed attempt (by Graham and the likes) to "take over" the idea of food instinct. It is an historical fact that vegetarianism , as an hygienist theory , litteraly came "out of the blue" at the beginning of the XIXth century, without any historical precedent in the western world (apart from the so- called phytagorean sect ). Military physicians who adhered to the age- old (warfare like ) tradition of instinctive hygienism, had no reason to abandon their omnivorous stronghold for a more fashionable vegetarian theory of human food instinct.
Both currents of thought (the "naturo-vegetarian" and the "militaro-omnivorous") remained opposed. But this did not prevent them from sharing all sorts of heretical findings/hypothesis on other medical subjects.
"I doubt very much this T.L. Cleave also developed the same completely new theories about bacteria / viruses, immune system response (tolerance – intolerance), autoimmune diseases, etc. as GCB did."
You must be kidding. Burger has no more invented those theories than he has invented the durian or the idea of food instinct. In every field of science , you will find heretic minds who constantly produce heretic theories which can be made compatible with an heretic food hygiene theory . You may even find scientific medical journals publishing research papers which are considered too hypothetical or too heretical to be published in mainstream scientific journals. The choice is yours : if you need an alternative, all-encompassing, theory in the field of virology, immunology, allergology, I can fetch a dozen for you.
Cultural differences also account for the variety of alternative theories. In allergology , the UK approach to natural "immunization" against environmental antigens has gone as far as recommending to shake the dust bag of your vacuum cleaner above the nose of your baby so that his immune system may be in touch with natural antigens at the earliest stage of his life. From a french physician point of view , this recommendation may border on insanity .
Have you done any research in history of immunology to determine whether Burger is a true genius or a mere plagiarist ?
